Special magistrate orders cleanups and fines in Fort Pierce code-enforcement hearing
May 20, 2026 | Fort Pierce, St. Lucie County, Florida
This article was created by AI summarizing key points discussed. AI makes mistakes, so for full details and context, please refer to the video of the full meeting. Please report any errors so we can fix them. Report an error »
Special Magistrate Jamie Barrow on May 20 found nuisance violations at several Fort Pierce properties and ordered owners to correct conditions or face daily fines and potential city abatement.
The city presented evidence in multiple cases — photographs, notice-of-violation forms and inspection histories — through code enforcement officers, and Barrow accepted the city's composite exhibits into evidence. City officer Charmaine Kirkland told the court that violations included nonoperable vehicles, overgrown landscaping and outdoor storage of appliances, tires and scrap material.
'This court's finding is that a nuisance condition exists in violation of the code of ordinances,' Barrow said when entering orders. In most cases the magistrate gave respondents seven days to remedy violations; one case involving exterior structural and storage violations included a 10-day compliance window. The magistrate set fines of $100 per day for many violations and $250 per day in at least one case if the property is not brought into compliance, and noted the city may abate the nuisance and assess the cost against the property. Respondents have 30 days to appeal the orders.
Several respondents told the court they had already removed items. Gary Bennett, a respondent in multiple nonoperable-vehicle cases at 100 North 26th Street, told the magistrate he had been out of the country, that the truck was for sale and that the vehicle(s) had been removed the previous night: "It's already gone." Officer Kirkland told the court Bennett had advised her the vehicles had been moved and said she would re-inspect the property.
Officer Jarvis Gamble presented CE-2026-179 (211 Avenue A), describing a stack of tires, outdoor furniture, scrap metal and peeling paint and recommending a 10-day order and a $250 daily fine for continued noncompliance. For cases involving landscaping and lot care, the city reported email contact with owners or representatives who said they expected to bring properties into compliance by the end of the workday; the magistrate nevertheless issued 7-day correction orders with $100-per-day fines for failure to comply.
Orders at a glance: the magistrate entered findings and compliance orders across multiple cases, including (all addresses as stated in court): NOOP-2026-69 (100 N. 26th St.) ' nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days to comply; $100/day fine; NOOP-2026-70 (100 N. 26th St.) ' nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days; $100/day; NOOP-2026-71 (100 N. 26th St.) ' nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days; $100/day; CE-2026-70 (305 N. 16th St.) ' landscape maintenance and nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days; $100/day; LTCL-2026-41 (Okeechobee Road parcel) ' landscaping violations ' 7 days; $100/day; CE-2026-179 (211 Avenue A) ' outside storage, damaged furniture, peeling paint ' 10 days; $250/day; NUIS-2026-6 (Avenue M) ' outside storage and debris ' 7 days; $100/day. The court repeatedly noted statutory posting and notice procedures and provided an appeal period of 30 days.
Clerk Crespo Martinez explained how absent alleged violators were notified in accordance with statute (certified mail, affidavit of mailing, posting at City Hall and posting at the property). The hearing was livestreamed and recorded; the magistrate recessed for a short break during a block of additional case identifications and then adjourned the session.
Next steps: officers will re-inspect properties to verify compliance; the city may initiate abatement and assess costs against properties that remain noncompliant after the compliance window. Respondents retain the right to file appeals within 30 days of the orders entered by the magistrate.
The city presented evidence in multiple cases — photographs, notice-of-violation forms and inspection histories — through code enforcement officers, and Barrow accepted the city's composite exhibits into evidence. City officer Charmaine Kirkland told the court that violations included nonoperable vehicles, overgrown landscaping and outdoor storage of appliances, tires and scrap material.
'This court's finding is that a nuisance condition exists in violation of the code of ordinances,' Barrow said when entering orders. In most cases the magistrate gave respondents seven days to remedy violations; one case involving exterior structural and storage violations included a 10-day compliance window. The magistrate set fines of $100 per day for many violations and $250 per day in at least one case if the property is not brought into compliance, and noted the city may abate the nuisance and assess the cost against the property. Respondents have 30 days to appeal the orders.
Several respondents told the court they had already removed items. Gary Bennett, a respondent in multiple nonoperable-vehicle cases at 100 North 26th Street, told the magistrate he had been out of the country, that the truck was for sale and that the vehicle(s) had been removed the previous night: "It's already gone." Officer Kirkland told the court Bennett had advised her the vehicles had been moved and said she would re-inspect the property.
Officer Jarvis Gamble presented CE-2026-179 (211 Avenue A), describing a stack of tires, outdoor furniture, scrap metal and peeling paint and recommending a 10-day order and a $250 daily fine for continued noncompliance. For cases involving landscaping and lot care, the city reported email contact with owners or representatives who said they expected to bring properties into compliance by the end of the workday; the magistrate nevertheless issued 7-day correction orders with $100-per-day fines for failure to comply.
Orders at a glance: the magistrate entered findings and compliance orders across multiple cases, including (all addresses as stated in court): NOOP-2026-69 (100 N. 26th St.) ' nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days to comply; $100/day fine; NOOP-2026-70 (100 N. 26th St.) ' nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days; $100/day; NOOP-2026-71 (100 N. 26th St.) ' nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days; $100/day; CE-2026-70 (305 N. 16th St.) ' landscape maintenance and nonoperable vehicle ' 7 days; $100/day; LTCL-2026-41 (Okeechobee Road parcel) ' landscaping violations ' 7 days; $100/day; CE-2026-179 (211 Avenue A) ' outside storage, damaged furniture, peeling paint ' 10 days; $250/day; NUIS-2026-6 (Avenue M) ' outside storage and debris ' 7 days; $100/day. The court repeatedly noted statutory posting and notice procedures and provided an appeal period of 30 days.
Clerk Crespo Martinez explained how absent alleged violators were notified in accordance with statute (certified mail, affidavit of mailing, posting at City Hall and posting at the property). The hearing was livestreamed and recorded; the magistrate recessed for a short break during a block of additional case identifications and then adjourned the session.
Next steps: officers will re-inspect properties to verify compliance; the city may initiate abatement and assess costs against properties that remain noncompliant after the compliance window. Respondents retain the right to file appeals within 30 days of the orders entered by the magistrate.
View the Full Meeting & All Its Details
This article offers just a summary. Unlock complete video, transcripts, and insights as a Founder Member.
✓
Watch full, unedited meeting videos
✓
Search every word spoken in unlimited transcripts
✓
AI summaries & real-time alerts (all government levels)
✓
Permanent access to expanding government content
30-day money-back guarantee
